AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
The instant bunch of ten cases pertains to the two different assessees, herein, namely Sh. Sanjay Jain and Sh. Pankaj Varshneya. The former assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 7010 to 7012/Del/2025 for AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 and the latter assessee’s seven cases ITA Nos.7015, 7014, 7016, 7013, 7017, 7018 & 7019/Del/2025 for AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22; are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon’s orders, all dated 14.08.2025, passed in cases nos.10830/17-18, 11058/18-19, 10941/19-20, 11236/14-15,11510/15-16, 11898/16-17, 10788/17-8, 11003/18-19, 10901/19-20, and 10226/20-21, involving proceedings under section 153C and 153A [143(3)/153A] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the assessees press for their identical sole substantive ground challenging the learned lower authorities’ action treating their purchases amounting to Rs.23,02,624/-, Rs.1,25,00,230/- and Rs.4,05,18,400/- in AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21; respectively, in the former assessee’s cases and Rs.3,29,16,000/-, Rs.72,39,325/-, Rs.27,17,85,000/-, Rs.16,88,09,000/-, Rs.2,30,78,000/-, Rs. 37,07,000/- and Rs.5,27,49,000/- in AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22; respectively, sourced from the concerned entities, as bogus ones in assessment orders dated 29.11.2023, 30.11.2023, 29.03.2023 and 30.03.2023; as the case may be, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessees are engaged in the construction business activities etc. all along wherein possibility of cash turnover and purchases in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that their corresponding business receipts therefrom have nowhere been questioned in both the lower proceedings. Various recent judicial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.com 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT; (2024) 160 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.; (2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd; (2025) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. – Trib.) DCIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views; inter alia accepting or partly allowing or rejecting the same in entirety as well.
Faced with these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 6% of both these assessees’ bogus purchases amounting to Rs.23,02,624/-, Rs.1,25,00,230/- and Rs.4,05,18,400/- in AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21; and Rs.3,29,16,000/-, Rs.72,39,325/-, Rs.27,17,85,000/-, Rs.16,88,09,000/-, Rs.2,30,78,000/-, Rs. 37,07,000/- and Rs.5,27,49,000/- in AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22; respectively, as just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Both the assessees’ book entries are hereby rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other grounds or arguments have been pressed.
These twin assessees’ appeals ITA Nos.7010 to 7012/Del/2025 and ITA Nos.7015, 7014, 7016, 7013, 7017, 7018 & 7019/Del/2025 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.